[jillybean]

I am glad that we have just been discussing 'comparable calls' in the other thread.
Part1. ACBL land
You are called to the table;

---

After South opens 1♦, West makes an insufficient 1♣ bid. (the software is too smart to allow me to make an insufficient bid in the diagram)

North tells me he will not accept the bid.

Reading Law 27B1(a) it appears that West can substitute the 1C with the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination, 2C, we don't address comparable calls until 27B1(b)

Do I stop here and allow 2C? , keeping 27D in mind?

[Cyberyeti]

Is 1♣ deemed to specify clubs if it's 2+ ? what system is being played here ?

[sanst]

Yes and yes. But 1♣ should be natural according to the RA's regulations. Over here it's treated as natural when made on a 4432 with 3 diamonds and 2 clubs.
In this case there's nothing in the Laws against 2♣, but afterwards you should look into possible damage to the NOS.
Don't worry about comparable calls and/or UI, Law 27 is quite clear.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2025-March-06, 04:20, said:

Yes and yes. But 1♣ should be natural according to the RA's regulations. Over here it's treated as natural when made on a 4432 with 3 diamonds and 2 clubs.
In this case there's nothing in the Laws against 2♣, but afterwards you should look into possible damage to the NOS.
Don't worry about comparable calls and/or UI, Law 27 is quite clear.

So it is natural if you play it as 2 in a 4432 only but not if you play it can be 3352/4342 where you are, don't know about the ACBL situation.

[jillybean]

ACBL Players who open 1♣ on 4432 are required to announce 'could be short'
While this short club is considered 'natural', 'normal' by some and needs no alert, I doubt the ACBL Regs agree.

edit: https://web2.acbl.or...Procedures2.pdf
Announcements

An Announcement is a word or a short phrase that describes the meaning of partner’s call. Announcements are a form of Alerting, and you must still visually Alert the call. Calls that require Announcements must be immediately announced, even if the call would otherwise not be Alerted or if the Alert would be delayed. Announce the following Agreements:

1. The minimum length of any Non-Forcing minor suit Opening that could be fewer than 3 cards. Use the form, “Could be X” where X is the minimum length of the suit as the announcement.


There are players who play this short club as 'forcing',(don't leave me in 1♣!) but announce/alert neither.

[sanst]

The Dutch regulation on BSC and HUM states in translation: "The 1♣-opening which can be made in an otherwise natural system on a singleton (five-card major and five-card diamonds) or doubleton (five-card major, four-card diamonds) but is not forcing must be considered a natural opening for the purposes of this rule."
Next to that announcing is unknown over here, but you're supposed to give a pre-alert if you play something that might come as a surprise to your opponents.
Holland and ACBL-land are miles apart, not only physically but also in the regulations of the game of bridge, though the Laws that are used are the same.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-06, 04:13, said:

Is 1♣ deemed to specify clubs if it's 2+ ? what system is being played here ?

std/sayc/ even some 2/1 players who open a short club
I'm not sure about your first Q, is it 'clubs' if it's 2+? I would say no. mycroft?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-March-06, 10:22, said:

std/sayc/ even some 2/1 players who open a short club
I'm not sure about your first Q, is it 'clubs' if it's 2+? I would say no. mycroft?

I would say yes, if 2+ is only when 4=4=3=2 as cyberyeti said at the beginning. But this is RA dependent.

More to the point, what did he think he was doing when he bid 1♣ ?
Did he think he was Dealer?
Did he think RHO passed?
Did he think (rightly) he was overcalling 1♦?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

"All matters" means the director must explain all of Law 27 before any player makes any choice. This may require explanation of other laws as well, e.g. 23, 26, 16, 72, possibly others.

There is also

Quote

Law 10C: 1. When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available.
2. If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.
3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the
most advantageous action.
4 Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their
side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).

[mycroft]

Explicitly in ACBL:

• If a 1m opener does not guarantee 3 cards, partner (bidder with self-Alerts) must Announce "could be X" where X is the absolute minimum (2, 1, 0).
  
• If a 1♣ opener "could be 2" and, if 2, it isn't guaranteed to be ♠xxxx ♥xxxx ♦xxx ♣xx (x's are ANY card), then the system must be pre-Alerted as well. This is because the opponents are allowed special defences against Quasi-Natural calls, and they are allowed to discuss it before bidding.
  
• More so if it was 1♦ on 2 or 1m on 1 (not A, K, or Q), where it's Artificial.
  
• More so again if it is Forcing (and yes, we know about "it's NOT forcing, partner just can't PASS!")

But if it's ostensibly clubs (and I would treat QN 2+, but could be 5, as "clubs", for Law 27 purposes), then you are right: by law, the lowest call that shows the same denomination(s) is *always* allowed (in this case 2♣) without restricting partner, and we don't get to comparable call.

Note that 26 (lead restrictions) and 16 (Logical Alternative) specifically DO NOT apply; instead we have 27D's "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different". Normal results, even got in a weird way, are okay; it's only if the insufficient bidder's side *gained* that we adjust. I've never done it; I've had to think about it more than once.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-March-06, 16:22, said:

"All matters" means the director must explain all of Law 27 before any player makes any choice. This may require explanation of other laws as well, e.g. 23, 26, 16, 72, possibly others.

There is also

Never in a club game have I seen this.

[blackshoe]

I'm sorry to hear that, though I'm not surprised. Still, dem's da roolz.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2025-March-06, 16:39, said:

Instead we have 27D's "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different". Normal results, even got in a weird way, are okay; it's only if the insufficient bidder's side *gained* that we adjust. I've never done it; I've had to think about it more than once.

And this case with a 2+ card club is particularly interesting, your partner gains the information (theoretically) that you have real clubs and also (if your overcalls could be lighter) that you has an opening hand, so if the auction proceeds 1♦-2♣-3♦ you may have a difficult situation for the director if they bid on a marginal hand.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2025-March-06, 16:19, said:

I would say yes, if 2+ is only when 4=4=3=2 as cyberyeti said at the beginning. But this is RA dependent.

More to the point, what did he think he was doing when he bid 1♣ ?
Did he think he was Dealer?
Did he think RHO passed?
Did he think (rightly) he was overcalling 1♦?

What has that to do with the application of Law 27B1a if 1♣ is (considered to be) natural? You explain the possibilities to the players, probably have to explain them once more, and let N make his or her choice. The more you ask, the more UI is given, which a director should try to avoid as much as possible.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2025-March-07, 08:44, said:

What has that to do with the application of Law 27B1a if 1♣ is (considered to be) natural? You explain the possibilities to the players, probably have to explain them once more, and let N make his or her choice. The more you ask, the more UI is given, which a director should try to avoid as much as possible.

You can ask away from the table to avoid UI. It matters if he thought he was overcalling (had a brainfade) and they would do this on significantly less than opening values. He has now massively overbid if he has a 6 count, if partner guesses this and essentially fields a psyche, is there a problem ?
Equally in this situation is a 3♣ WJO comparable to a 1♣ "overcall", and might he prefer that ?

[jillybean]

I'm confused.
1♥ 1♦ oops!
1♠ 1♦
1♠ 1♥

Is different from 1x:1♣ oops!, where clubs can be 2+ and diamonds are typically 4(3), hearts typically 5

What is the rationale for allowing a correction to a 2 - 3 card suit?

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-07, 10:07, said:

You can ask away from the table to avoid UI. It matters if he thought he was overcalling (had a brainfade) and they would do this on significantly less than opening values. He has now massively overbid if he has a 6 count, if partner guesses this and essentially fields a psyche, is there a problem ?
Equally in this situation is a 3♣ WJO comparable to a 1♣ "overcall", and might he prefer that ?

To apply 27B1a it's not necessary to know what the player was thinking. You are allowed to rectify your IB with the lowest in the same denomination without restrictions and there's no UI or lead restrictions. The rest of 27B is of no importance in that situation.
If you have the opportunity, you stay at the table to see both the auction and the play and apply 27D when you think that the outcome could have been different without the IB.

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2025-March-07, 10:27, said:

What is the rationale for allowing a correction to a 2 - 3 card suit?

AFAK to let the auction continue in the most natural way without restrictions. The RA over here obviously thinks that there's not much extra information, not enough to have a huge influence on the outcome. And there's always 27D that you can and should apply if necessary.
An opening bid of 1♣ on a 3- or 2-card clubs suit in an otherwise natural system is standard in The Netherlands. If it's a forcing 1♣ opening bid, it's not natural according to the regulation.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2025-March-07, 10:42, said:

To apply 27B1a it's not necessary to know what the player was thinking. You are allowed to rectify your IB with the lowest in the same denomination without restrictions and there's no UI or lead restrictions. The rest of 27B is of no importance in that situation.
If you have the opportunity, you stay at the table to see both the auction and the play and apply 27D when you think that the outcome could have been different without the IB.

Missing the point I was making. If he was thinking of overcalling, he might decide to NOT correct to 2♣ so as not to overstate his values, but make a 3♣ WJO instead, and this might be comparable. That is why you ask what he was thinking.

[axman]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-07, 11:41, said:

Missing the point I was making. If he was thinking of overcalling, he might decide to NOT correct to 2♣ so as not to overstate his values, but make a 3♣ WJO instead, and this might be comparable. That is why you ask what he was thinking.

There is compelling reason to require the correction to be at the minimum level. A likely outcome being that the correction bars partner thereby making viable 'guessing' at a high level what otherwise would not have been 'viable' (would not have occurred because anti-system or isn't protected via enforced-pass) absent irregularity (as in preempting NOS out of the auction). It could be said that the IB gave the NOS 'maximum latitude' to compete... and the do-over (unbalancing turns) at the minimum level retains such latitude. Such draws the remedy closer to justice.